[Rob Marshall]

So I'm a new member to this site but I've been reading it for a few years. I'm 52 and been playing golf for over 40 years. Still a scratch player player who's played in local and state tournaments for years. When I asked Ran to become a member he asked what I could contribute. I told him not much in regards to course architecture. I wanted to participate to learn about course architecture. So all that said here it goes....

From what I've read here the generally thinking when it comes to trees on the golf course is less is more. I know this is a very broad question but what is the role of trees in parkland course design? 

[Tommy Williamsen]

Welcome. Did you really have to ask that question?  It just brings out tree haters.

[Rob Marshall]

A few weeks ago I played Aronimimk. To my eye it was almost tree less. Great course, very challenging, great greens complexes. The next day we played Philly CC.  Beautiful. Great elevation changes. Wonderful golf course. A lot of trees that gave the course a nice background that Aronimink didn't have. I like Aronimink but I loved Philly. I think the trees or lack of was a big influence on that.

[Tyler Kearns]

Rob,

I would hesitate to base the strategy of a hole around a single tree, as they are susceptible to disease, forces of nature etc.  The biggest problem poised by trees to golf are the negative impacts they have on turf quality, robbing grass of nutrients & sunlight and sheltering grass from drying winds.  When properly managed however, trees add a great deal of visual interest to a golf course.

TK 

[mike_beene]

While two of golf's most memorable views, the view from the driveway at Murfield and clubhouse at Oakmont, would lose their scale with trees on the course, trees fit very well on most settings. The biggest problem is the gradual creep that occurs year to year. You wake up one day and they have choked your lines of play and turf.

[Sean_A]

Welcome. Did you really have to ask that question?  It just brings out tree haters.

Tommy

I am disappointed you use this phrase to describe me.  I love trees, but perhaps I am a bit more discerning than yourself about the type, placement and number of trees on a golf course.  I see trees much like any other golf course feature.  There must be well-reasoned explanations for their use and those explanations should help keep the course features in balance. 

Some examples of what I mean.

Good idea gone wrong.  Double the width of the fairway and the guarding trees makes sense.  As it is now, much of the current fairway's access to the green is impeded by the trees. 
 

Good use of trees.  Background screen and the lone front left tree brings the bunkers on right more into play.  The thing is, that background screen shouldn't usually be employed along fairways because it has an overwhelming green wall effect.  The trees are not distinguishable as separate entities.  Sure, sometimes it can't be avoided, but often times the green wall effect is not planned, it just evolves until one day you find that some shots can no longer be hit because trees are hard along fairways.   


Good use of trees.  Beautiful, high canopy.  Background aiming points for a blind green.  I can see the argument for removing the rear trees to gain a view, but I thik in the case of this course, there are plenty of views and the trees are a welcome aid.  Its a shame the full effect of the trees is lessened by harsh rough.  It would be fair better if the tree areas were cleared out and some interesting recovery shots would bbe available. 


Superb framing trees which are beautiful and the beauty is showcased by there being no other trees competing for the view. 


Another great example of allowing beauty to stand out.


More lovelly trees dotted about creating a 3D effect by using height in the landscape. 


Examples of the green wall.  To me, this is dreadful tree management.







I think the difference in examples is startling and for sure a revelation for anybody who pays attention.  The so-called tree haters for the most part are merely pointing out the difference and trying to demonstrate how trees can be of much more value to a course if managed properly.


Ciao


 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

While the left tree in your photo may encroach a little too far, I have little problem with one hole per course using trees in that general fashion, although I usually do it with a wide open fairway as sort of a "delayed penalty" (in hockey terms) for hitting the wrong side of the fw.  As long as it's high branching, and about 2/3 of the way between LZ and green (or near the apex of a typical shot) there are ways to go over, under, or curve around it.

On tee shots, I will arrange a hole or two with a large tree at 180-200 yards off the back tees (again, matching the vertical apex and horizontal apex of a curve shot) to more or less force a curved shot to the best area, while leaving enough room on the far side of the fw for those who can't hit the requisite shot.

Where trees have to line the fw, high branched trees with turf below work best, to allow recovery.

In general, I find the corridor width has to be 225-250 feet to contain most shots within the trees.  Anything narrower, and 1 in 4 tee shots will find the woods, which slows play and reduces fun. Can't always get them that wide, and really, a triple row sprinkler system covers about 210 feet, but it requires 4 rows to get the wider corridor.  Of course, 4 rows is actually better, because the super can run the inner two rows to get the fw and reduce days, run time, or even shut off the outer two rows, except when absolutely necessary. 

One of my early career memories was meeting Rees Jones, and somewhere in that conversation, he lamented narrow fw, forced on him because his client couldn't afford an extra row of sprinklers. Somehow, it was comforting to know that the big boys had the same problems I did!

[Charlie Gallagher]

Rob,   
   Good topic to examine. 
Jeff,
    I like your disemination of some of the science behind sound design. I've always thought that where possible corridors should be about 80 yards wide, and you have confirmed a number that is in the ball park.  I also appreciate the consideration that goes into leaving a tree to force the shaping of a shot. In parkland settings, I get that thinking, though I prefer the strategy of a hole to come mostly from the topography, hazards, and green complex design, I can think of notable exceptions to that concept. The 17th at Plainfield has a strategically featured tree on it's right side near the landing area, that invites an attempt to carry it, though the proximity of the road right forces  the player to  produce a well aimed and struck drive. Sorry, I have no picture of the hole.
Rob,
   I am familiar with both Philadelphia courses you identified and your assessment of the the greater effect of trees on strategy  at Philadelphia Country Club is right on, but overall, I think the ground features at "Amink" make for more interesting golf. The thining of trees there enhances the visual impact of the topography and bunkering. By the way, trees have been thinned at PCC too and holes like 16 have been greatly improved because of that work. Both courses are outstanding parkland layouts.
   A final point, less trees mean more wind influence, easier maintenance, better turf, and in the north, more rapid snow melt. I like trees in copses, where possible. Just my preferences.

[Thomas Dai]

I would suggest there is also the aspect of evergreen vrs deciduous trees to consider.
atb

[Tom Bacsanyi]

Sean, what course is the one with the "Good use of trees.  Beautiful, high canopy..." caption? 

[Dan Kelly]

Here, IMO, is a really good parkland tree:



It's on the 8th hole of my home course, Midland Hills CC in Roseville, Minnesota.

The hole is in the mid-300s yards long, with the green up a steep hill to the right.

The tree forces a decision at the tee: left, right, or over the tree. Left is safer, though a hard-hit pull can go through the fairway into the rough (with potential tree problems). Right is riskier, as the carry gets longer and longer the farther right you go.

The resultant second shots, if the tee shot is executed properly, vary from about 130 yards (left of the tree) to maybe 70 yards (right). The green is tilted pretty seriously from back to front, placing a high premium on yardage-accuracy of the second shot. Shots that don't reach the green can roll back down the hill (50 yards or so); shots that go over the green face a devilish downhill chip or putt (which also has been known to end up at the bottom of the hill).

If the tree were not there, I think most players would comfortably aim within the margins of its branches. (Many do already.) But if you aim there and hit it on line but too low, that tree will get you.

The tree creates discomfort every time, for most players.

[Dave McCollum]

Rob,

I put a bunch of long-winded comments on Mucci’s thread about trees.  Mostly about the problem of strategy relying too much on certain specimen trees.  Also, in repose to Tom Doak’s question whether I’d do it again.  My remarks were specifically about our course, a high desert layout, and not very applicable to parkland designs.  I think the above remarks are more useful.  A lot seems to come down the specific site and, in the case of parkland and heavily wooded sites, the money for clearing and management.     

[Charlie Gallagher]

Thomas,
   Good identifying the sub issue of conifer v. deciduous, it is important.
   In much of the eastern part of the US we see lots of white pine. A buddy pointed out that the roots tend to run along the surface, in addition to the homely canopy they tend to present. Those roots pose a hazard to both the player and the superintendent's equipment. Deciduous pose their own issues, leaf clean up and soil degredation are part of that equation.  I say as my rule, less trees equal better golf. Not no trees, just less trees. Worcester Country Club and Aronimink present good balance.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()